Store HIR attributes in a side table
Same idea as #72015 but for attributes.
The objective is to reduce incr-comp invalidations due to modified attributes.
Notably, those due to modified doc comments.
Implementation:
- collect attributes during AST->HIR lowering, in `LocalDefId -> ItemLocalId -> &[Attributes]` nested tables;
- access the attributes through a `hir_owner_attrs` query;
- local refactorings to use this access;
- remove `attrs` from HIR data structures one-by-one.
Change in behaviour:
- the HIR visitor traverses all attributes at once instead of parent-by-parent;
- attribute arrays are sometimes duplicated: for statements and variant constructors;
- as a consequence, attributes are marked as used after unused-attribute lint emission to avoid duplicate lints.
~~Current bug: the lint level is not correctly applied in `std::backtrace_rs`, triggering an unused attribute warning on `#![no_std]`. I welcome suggestions.~~
Don't hardcode the `v1` prelude in diagnostics, to allow for new preludes.
Instead of looking for `std::prelude::v1`, this changes the two places where that was hardcoded to look for `std::prelude::<anything>` instead.
This is needed for https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/82217.
r? `@estebank`
Bump tracing-tree dependency
This bump fixes two small rendering things that were annoying me:
* The first level didn't have an opening line
* When wraparound happens, there was no warning, the levels just disappeared. Now there is a line that shows that wraparound is happening
See https://github.com/davidbarsky/tracing-tree/pull/31/files for how the look changes
Add Option::get_or_default
Tracking issue: #82901
The original issue is #55042, which was closed, but for an invalid reason (see discussion there). Opening this to reconsider (I hope that's okay). It seems like the only gap for `Option` being "entry-like".
I ran into a need for this method where I had a `Vec<Option<MyData>>` and wanted to do `vec[n].get_or_default().my_data_method()`. Using an `Option` as an inner component of a data structure is probably where the need for this will normally arise.
Stabilize `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint
This makes it possible to override the level of the `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn`, as proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/71668#issuecomment-729770896.
Tracking issue: #71668
r? ```@nikomatsakis``` cc ```@SimonSapin``` ```@RalfJung```
# Stabilization report
This is a stabilization report for `#![feature(unsafe_block_in_unsafe_fn)]`.
## Summary
Currently, the body of unsafe functions is an unsafe block, i.e. you can perform unsafe operations inside.
The `unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn` lint, stabilized here, can be used to change this behavior, so performing unsafe operations in unsafe functions requires an unsafe block.
For now, the lint is allow-by-default, which means that this PR does not change anything without overriding the lint level.
For more information, see [RFC 2585](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2585-unsafe-block-in-unsafe-fn.md)
### Example
```rust
// An `unsafe fn` for demonstration purposes.
// Calling this is an unsafe operation.
unsafe fn unsf() {}
// #[allow(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)] by default,
// the behavior of `unsafe fn` is unchanged
unsafe fn allowed() {
// Here, no `unsafe` block is needed to
// perform unsafe operations...
unsf();
// ...and any `unsafe` block is considered
// unused and is warned on by the compiler.
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[warn(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn warned() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause the compiler to emit a warning.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
#[deny(unsafe_op_in_unsafe_fn)]
unsafe fn denied() {
// Removing this `unsafe` block will
// cause a compilation error.
// (Also, no "unused unsafe" warning will be emitted here.)
unsafe {
unsf();
}
}
```
This updates all places where match branches check on StatementKind or UseContext.
This doesn't properly implement them, but adds TODOs where they are, and also adds some best
guesses to what they should be in some cases.
I'm still not totally sure if this is the right way to implement the memcpy, but that portion
compiles correctly now. Now to fix the compile errors everywhere else :).
